Our view: Licensing bill was misstep in deregulation bid
February 6, 2012 3:36PM
Hair stylist Shannon Grimmer works with customer Andrea Bracas of Valparaiso, at Bliss Hair and Nails in Merrillville, Ind., Wednesday January 25, 2012. House Bill 1006 was designed to deregulate several industries, including the cosmetology and barber
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Related Stories
Updated: March 8, 2012 8:01AM
As we’ve seen time and again, the process of legislating isn’t always pretty. There are missteps and unintended consequences and good ideas executed poorly.
Such is the case with House Bill 1006, which had a lofty, excellent goal of reducing the size and role of government. However, as crafted, it would have created more problems than it solved. The bill would have eliminated licensing requirements for dietitians, hearing-aid dealers, security guards and private investigators, and cosmetologists and barbers.
After an uprising by many professionals, the bill’s sponsor pulled it.
A legislative study committee had recommended the various professions that should no longer be licensed but many, especially those in the barber and beauty professions were offended that their careers might not be considered important enough for a license.
Although we don’t often think of haircuts and manicures as health concerns, cosmetologists statewide raised concerns about incompetent or untrained workers spreading epidemics such as scabies or lice. Yes, some risk still exists, even with a licensing process, but knowing that professionals must be taught proper techniques for sterilizing equipment is comforting — so comforting we hardly think about it until it becomes an issue and the safety net is taken away.
There is a fine line between too much regulation strangling business, and too little failing to protect citizens and consumers. Just because this version of the bill didn’t find the mark doesn’t mean the goal is unworthy.
— (Marion) Chronicle-Tribune
Comments Click here to view or make a comment